# Does John McCain meet the requirements to be President?? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 1, 2008, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-john-mccain-meet-the-requirements-to-be-president/435802 "2008-02-01T01:49:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Cerowyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/82dd89/32.png) [@Cerowyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cerowyn)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2008, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-john-mccain-meet-the-requirements-to-be-president/435802/61 "2008-02-20T23:21:25Z")
[QUOTE=Monty] Embassy ground are considered US territory by diplomatic treaty [/QUOTE] Pretty close. Embassies are given the presumption of extraterritorial status, which exempts them from most local laws. However, the premises are still technically part of the host country, despite the fact that for all practical purposes, they are “foreign soil.” ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2008, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-john-mccain-meet-the-requirements-to-be-president/435802/62 "2008-02-20T23:32:33Z")
[QUOTE=Frylock] I’m trying to figure out the singificance of the phrase “at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.” McCain wasn’t even _born_ yet (I think). -FrL- [/QUOTE] The Constitution uses commas in ways that modern grammarians would frown on. The passage means: No person except: a natural born Citizen or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President Since the United States were only a few years old at the time of the adoption of the constitution, any natural born citizens of the United States would be only a few years old. If we take it that the United States began existance on July 4, 1776, and the Constitution was ratified in 1787, then any natural born citizens of the United States would be no older than 11 years old. And of course, the main purpose of the natural born citizen requirement was to prevent the common-at-the-time European practice of importing foreign aristocrats to serve as king when the previous line of kings didn’t quite work out. See the House of Hannover, William of Orange, and so on. The head of state of the United States was required to be an American, not some German princeling. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2008, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-john-mccain-meet-the-requirements-to-be-president/435802/63 "2008-02-21T04:50:57Z")
[QUOTE=Cerowyn] Pretty close. Embassies are given the presumption of extraterritorial status, which exempts them from most local laws. However, the premises are still technically part of the host country, despite the fact that for all practical purposes, they are “foreign soil.” [/QUOTE] More can be read [here](http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/membassy.htm), in a commentary given on a well-known message board. > [@](#): > > First we need to address a problem with your initial premise, Ken: It’s wrong. While some have claimed an embassy is the territory of the country it represents, that theory has been rejected by the courts. For example, Barry Carter and his coauthors, in their textbook on international law, say, “Contrary to popular belief, however, diplomatic mission and consular post properties are not extensions of the sending state’s territory. Both in fact and in law, diplomatic premises are within the territory of the receiving state.” > > What causes the confusion is the general rule that diplomatic missions are inviolable. That means the receiving state’s police can’t enter an embassy without the sending state’s consent. It doesn’t mean the receiving state’s laws don’t apply there. For example, embassies must comply with local building and fire codes. While those codes can’t be enforced directly, the receiving state is authorized to “withhold benefits” from sending states that do not comply with local laws. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2008, 8:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-john-mccain-meet-the-requirements-to-be-president/435802/64 "2008-02-21T08:27:42Z")
[QUOTE=Cerowyn] Pretty close. Embassies are given the presumption of extraterritorial status, which exempts them from most local laws. However, the premises are still technically part of the host country, despite the fact that for all practical purposes, they are “foreign soil.” [/QUOTE] Thanks, **Cerowyn**. An extra question about that, if you don’t mind. What’s the deal on someone with diplomatic status giving birth while located in the foreign country which has extended diplomatic status to said diplomat? For example, say a German diplomat gave birth in the New York while posted to the United Nations. Would the child be considered also a natural born US citizen? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2008, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-john-mccain-meet-the-requirements-to-be-president/435802/65 "2008-02-21T17:22:00Z")
[QUOTE=Monty] Thanks, **Cerowyn**. An extra question about that, if you don’t mind. What’s the deal on someone with diplomatic status giving birth while located in the foreign country which has extended diplomatic status to said diplomat? For example, say a German diplomat gave birth in the New York while posted to the United Nations. Would the child be considered also a natural born US citizen? [/QUOTE] The answer is no. 8 U.S.C. 1401 mirrors the language of the 14th amendment, “born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” That final clause has been interpreted to exclude the children of diplomats and the children of invading armies. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2008, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-john-mccain-meet-the-requirements-to-be-president/435802/66 "2008-02-21T18:44:52Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] It would’ve been considered part of the base, though, even if it was just housing. I’ve lived in such places. Shore Patrol, not cops. Gated entry. It’s just an annex to the base. And [here](http://panamaliving.com/NavalStationCocoSoloPhotoAlbum.html) are some pictures, including the Naval Hospital. [/QUOTE] I just checked some references on the history of the Coco Solo Naval Base and the Hospital. The Coco Solo Hospital shown in that photo, although it was on a base at the time, was not built until 1942, so it was not the hospital McCain was born in. I was somewhat mistaken about the status of the area of Coco Solo and the hospital. While these have not been “on base” since I have been working in Panama (since 1977), they were formerly parts of military bases. However, this is a bit moot unless the simple fact of birth on a US overseas military base would confer US citizenship, and I am not aware it does. As I mentioned, in general birth in the Canal Zone gave no special status with regard to US citizenship. If your parent(s) were citizens, then you would be; if not, you were not. There was one exception: the residence requirement mentioned by **flodnak** above was waived. A child of a US citizen had no requirement to live in the US at any time in order to be able to pass on his US citizenship to his offspring. However, this provision ended after the Canal Zone ceased to exist. ---
**Author:** ![Will\_Repair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/a698b9/32.png) [@Will\_Repair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Will_Repair)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2008, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-john-mccain-meet-the-requirements-to-be-president/435802/67 "2008-02-21T22:42:36Z")
[QUOTE=Lemur866] There will be no legal challenges to his presidency [/QUOTE] There was a [challenge to the vice presidency](http://www.jhguide.com/Archives/NewsArchive/2000/001115-News.html) in 2000. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2008, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-john-mccain-meet-the-requirements-to-be-president/435802/68 "2008-02-21T22:55:47Z")
The result of those lawsuits: > [@](#): > > Defendants move to dismiss, contending that plaintiffs **lack standing** , that their suit presents a **non-justiciable political question** , and that they have failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Because plaintiffs do not have standing to sue, the court grants defendants’ motion to dismiss. Jones v. Bush, 122 F. Supp. 2d 713, 715 (D. Tex. 2000). The judge also commented that the case would lose on the merits anyway. The standing issue probably could have been overcome if the DNC or Gore had filed the suit, but it probably still would have lost on political question, if not the merits. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2008, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-john-mccain-meet-the-requirements-to-be-president/435802/69 "2008-02-28T05:13:32Z")
The New York Times writes about this issue in today’s paper. > [@](#): > > “There are powerful arguments that Senator McCain or anyone else in this position is constitutionally qualified, but there is certainly no precedent,” said Sarah H. Duggin, an associate professor of law at Catholic University who has studied the issue extensively. **“It is not a slam-dunk situation.”** > > Mr. McCain was born on a military installation in the Canal Zone, where his mother and father, a Navy officer, were stationed. His campaign advisers say they are comfortable that Mr. McCain meets the requirement and note that the question was researched for his first presidential bid in 1999 and reviewed again this time around. > > **But given mounting interest, the campaign recently asked Theodore B. Olson, a former solicitor general now advising Mr. McCain, to prepare a detailed legal analysis.** “I don’t have much doubt about it,” said Mr. Olson, who added, though, that he still needed to finish his research. > > . . . > > Lawyers who have examined the topic say there is not just confusion about the provision itself, but uncertainty about who would have the legal standing to challenge a candidate on such grounds, what form a challenge could take and whether it would have to wait until after the election or could be made at any time. > > In a paper written 20 years ago for the Yale Law Journal on the natural-born enigma, Jill Pryor, now a lawyer in Atlanta, said that any legal challenge to a presidential candidate born outside national boundaries would be “unpredictable and unsatisfactory.” > > “If I were on the Supreme Court, I would decide for John McCain,” Ms. Pryor said in a recent interview. **“But it is certainly not a frivolous issue.”** [Link](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28mccain.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1204175387-Qh0cyMPbfdOSLHrzu5JDmw) Take that, doubters. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2008, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-john-mccain-meet-the-requirements-to-be-president/435802/70 "2008-02-28T06:22:09Z")
The following from C.I.S. may be relevant: > [@](#): > > Citizenship of Children > > The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees citizenship at birth to almost all individuals born in the United States or in U.S. jurisdictions, according to the principle of _jus soli_. Certain individuals born in the United States, such as children of foreign heads of state or children of foreign diplomats, do not obtain U.S. citizenship under _jus soli_. > > Certain individuals born outside of the United States are born citizens because of their parents, according to the principle of _jus sanguinis_ (which holds that the country of citizenship of a child is the same as that of his / her parents). The U.S. Congress is responsible for enacting laws that determine how citizenship is conveyed by a U.S. citizen parent or parents according to the principle of _jus sanguinis_. These laws are contained in the Immigration and Nationality Act. [_(Source)_](http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=85d3744a400ae010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=96719c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD) On the presumption that being a U.S. citizen at birth is a “natural-born citizen” McCain would be covered – if not by _jus soli_ then by _just sanguinis_. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2008, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-john-mccain-meet-the-requirements-to-be-president/435802/71 "2008-02-28T06:58:48Z")
[QUOTE=Polycarp] The following from C.I.S. may be relevant: On the presumption that being a U.S. citizen at birth is a “natural-born citizen” McCain would be covered – if not by _jus soli_ then by _just sanguinis_. [/QUOTE] The key word in the C.I.S. description is “almost.” We are discussing just one such gray area. It rightly points out that the 14th has been interpreted as Constitutionally implementing the principle of _jus soli_. The question is what \*jus soli \*would tell us about McCain. _Jus soli_ has its origins in feudal sovereignty. If you were born under the power of the king, you were his subject, and he was your king. As \*\*Colibri \*\*has mentioned above, one did not automatically become a US citizen by being born in the Canal Zone. The nature of US sovereignty there may be materially different from the sort of sovereignty inherent in _jus soli._ _Jus sanguins_ comes from the Roman tradition; the rule in England was _jus soli_. That is why _jus sanguins_ had to be added by statute. And, of course, the statute doesn’t settle anything. Congress is not free to define a constitutional term however it chooses. It cannot define “natural-born” to mean born in a farmhouse, for example. So a court would have to examine one or both questions: 1) Does the principle of \*jus soli \*imbedded in the 14th Amendment include McCain? And 2) Is the INA’s _jus sanguins_-based definition of natural-born citizen Constitutional? Neither question has an open-and-shut answer, as the article points out. The answer to the second question depends on how the court defines “natural-born.” Originalism largely fails us here. The framers did not believe that, say, American Indians were citizens. Indeed even the 14th amendment didn’t change that according to the Supreme Court in\* Elk v. Wilkins\*. So we are left with the less predictable methods of Constitutional interpretation. We’ve no doctrine at all to rely on. So this would largely be a prudential question. Which brings us back to reality, of course, since prudential concerns will prevent this case from ever seeing the inside of a courtroom anyway. The Yale Law Review article I cited earlier is well worth a read if you have access to such things. It discusses all of this much more intelligently than I have done. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2008, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-john-mccain-meet-the-requirements-to-be-president/435802/72 "2008-02-28T13:55:41Z")
New York Times weighs in: [McCain’s Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28mccain.html) > [@](#): > > given mounting interest, the campaign recently asked Theodore B. Olson, a former solicitor general now advising Mr. McCain, to prepare a detailed legal analysis. “I don’t have much doubt about it,” said Mr. Olson, who added, though, that he still needed to finish his research. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2008, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-john-mccain-meet-the-requirements-to-be-president/435802/73 "2008-02-28T16:29:12Z")
Pssst. Post 69. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2008, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-john-mccain-meet-the-requirements-to-be-president/435802/74 "2008-02-28T16:43:04Z")
[QUOTE=Richard Parker] Pssst. Post 69. [/QUOTE] Whoops. You’re quick! ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2008, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-john-mccain-meet-the-requirements-to-be-president/435802/75 "2008-02-28T19:37:14Z")
I’d probably never vote for McCain, but I have no doubt that he’s eligible to serve as President. You want to tell U.S. servicemen and -women living abroad, serving their country across the globe, that their kids at the moment of birth become ineligible to serve as President? Yeah, good luck. Let me know how that works out for you. Even aside from the contemporary political calculation, consider original intent. As near as we can determine, the Framers were concerned about shifty furriners trying to subvert the U.S. They weren’t concerned about the kids of military personnel born abroad, or indeed the kids of U.S. citizens living abroad for _whatever_ reason, stealthily becoming President. Is the Constitution kinda ambiguous on this point? Unfortunately, yes. Is it at all likely to keep McCain or anyone similarly-situated from becoming President? Nope. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2008, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-john-mccain-meet-the-requirements-to-be-president/435802/76 "2008-02-28T19:43:54Z")
[QUOTE=Elendil’s Heir] I’d probably never vote for McCain, but I have no doubt that he’s eligible to serve as President. You want to tell U.S. servicemen and -women living abroad, serving their country across the globe, that their kids at the moment of birth become ineligible to serve as President? Yeah, good luck. Let me know how that works out for you. [/quote] I don’t know if this was directed at me, but I just want to make clear (again) that I’m not advocating that anyone challenge McCain. Like the Times, I’m just interested in it as an academic question. There is no doubt in my mind that as a policy matter McCain should be eligible for President. Indeed, even as a legal matter, I think it’s pretty clear. But not totally frivolous. That’s all. > [@Elendil's Heir](#): > > Even aside from the contemporary political calculation, consider original intent. As near as we can determine, the Framers were concerned about shifty furriners trying to subvert the U.S. They weren’t concerned about the kids of military personnel born abroad, or indeed the kids of U.S. citizens living abroad for _whatever_ reason, stealthily becoming President. True, to an extent. Their main purpose does appear to have been to prevent the importation of foreign aristocracy. Nonetheless, we can come up with reasons why they would have limited the principle in a way that is more limited than the current statute. Perhaps they believed you needed to be raised in the U.S. cultural environment, for example. > [@Elendil's Heir](#): > > Is the Constitution kinda ambiguous on this point? Unfortunately, yes. Is it at all likely to keep McCain or anyone similarly-situated from becoming President? Nope. Just to say again, for anyone coming into this thread late, everyone agrees that this will never make it into a court for half a dozen reasons. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2008, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-john-mccain-meet-the-requirements-to-be-president/435802/77 "2008-02-28T20:51:56Z")
[QUOTE=Richard Parker] I don’t know if this was directed at me… [/QUOTE] No, it wasn’t. No worries. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2008, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-john-mccain-meet-the-requirements-to-be-president/435802/78 "2008-02-29T04:26:06Z")
McCain insists it’s no problem but doesn’t know why his campaign asked for a legal opinion on the subject, and Obama is cosponsoring a bill to make it clear that McCain and anyone else born to U.S. troops while serving abroad is eligible to serve as President: [http://news.aol.com/elections/story/\_a/mccain-says-citizenship-a-dead-issue/n20080228220009990048?cid=435](http://news.aol.com/elections/story/_a/mccain-says-citizenship-a-dead-issue/n20080228220009990048?cid=435) ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2008, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-john-mccain-meet-the-requirements-to-be-president/435802/79 "2008-03-02T18:05:26Z")
[QUOTE=Richard Parker] Pretty much everyone thinks no court would hear it based on [political question](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_question) doctrine. But, again, people are not so certain in the wake of Bush v. Gore. [/QUOTE] So, if it’s a Political Question and the courts won’t hear it, then why not Gov Arnie? ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2008, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-john-mccain-meet-the-requirements-to-be-president/435802/80 "2008-03-02T23:28:55Z")
[QUOTE=DrDeth] So, if it’s a Political Question and the courts won’t hear it, then why not Gov Arnie? [/QUOTE] Has anyone ever proposed that Arnold is a natural-born citizen? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-john-mccain-meet-the-requirements-to-be-president/435802.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-john-mccain-meet-the-requirements-to-be-president/435802.md?page=5)